StoppingPower.net Forums
Home
Forums
Commentary
H&S
About
StoppingPower.net Forums

StoppingPower.net Forums - Problems with our G22s.......
StoppingPower.net Forums
StoppingPower.net Forums
Forums Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Invite a friend
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Shooting
 Glocks
 Problems with our G22s.......
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  3:56:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We hosted the Glock armorer course and instructor workshop at our range over the past week (very cool to have THE Dennis Tueller as the instructor).

We just got our shipment of Glock 22s in last Friday, and the ammo in on Monday (CCI Blazer and Gold Dot 165gr), we were also planning on deploying the M3X lights for our new guns for the tac and K9 guys (we previously issued the S&W TSW and the M3 lights).

In live fire we quickly figured out that the combo of a G22, 165gr ammo (especially the Gold Dot) and the mounted lights leads to a nasty feed ramp/front of mag nose dive stoppage.

It's not a limp wrist issue, in fact it's the opposite. I could really limp wrist the gun and it would work, when one gets on the gun like one should it's instant choke. I believe that the .40 and .357 Sig Glocks are under sprung recoil spring wise, and that the round is cycling the slide so fast that the mag spring can't keep up. I'm not hold my breath that Herr Glock takes my suggestion and comes up with a recoil spring just for the .40/.357s

I should note that a couple of our guns weren't 100% even without lights, but that could have been new gun issues, although they would be the first Glocks I've seen need a break in.

FWIW, the CCI guys are VERY helpful and don't play the blame game,,,, once again they are stepping up to the plate to help fix a problem that I am certain they didn't create.

Was on the phone with a buddy who is the rangemaster for KCMO PD, they issue the 180gr Gold Dot (and it works very well for them in their OISs). I confirmed that they deploy nearly 100 guns with tac lights and they have had no problems....so it was off to Simmons in the Olathe area to get a case of 180gr Gold Dot and confirm.

After over 400 rounds through two guns with lights mounted, using eight different mags, my guns seem to work with the 180gr (it's all of the .40 my hands could stand last night, man I wish we had stayed with the 9mm, I'm convinced this wouldn't have happened, oh well.....).
Now for everyone else's guns I'm in testing mode. CCI is fronting me ammo to do a test fire, they actually want us to shoot a bunch of free ammo so that we are happy it works, did I mention they are great folks??)

I've always been a light fast bullet kind of guy, but of course reliability comes first. I do like the fact that KCMO has had such good luck with the 180gr Gold Dot in their officer involved shootings. I've seen two on car camera videos, both of those bad guys looked like they had been hit by Thor's hammer, not that I'm holding my breath that this will always be the case.
FWIW, our Glock rep advises that the Glock .40s were designed around the 180gr ammo.

Has anyone else had any similar issues??? Comments??????
Other suggestions?

sword6
Junior Member

USA
130 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  4:10:08 PM  Show Profile  Send sword6 an AOL message  Send sword6 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
I have a G21 and it did hicup twice in the first 500 rounds but since then its been 100%. I also have two friends with G23's that have always been 100%. Hopefully glock with make good.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Maccarrone
Average Member

USA
462 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  4:46:37 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey Chuck,

Our agency (of 1250 officers) has used 180 Gold Dot since 1994, and results have been consistently very good. When we started getting guns with the new receivers (finger grooves and rail) there suddenly were feeding problems similar to those you describe, because the new receiver is stiffer than the old one -- and this would be exacerbated by the addition of a mounted light. This was cured by new magazine springs from Glock, with one extra coil if I recall correctly. I wonder if the slide cycles faster with the 165 than the 180; what are the specs on the 165? I'm not familiar with it.

Other than that brief stumble, I think our experience validates Glock's choice to use the same recoil spring for the .40 and 9mm, because we just don't have feeding issues with the G22. The recoil spring tension is evaluated yearly by an armorer during quals, and replaced if it seems tired (which would be a good thing, because it means you've been shooting quite a bit!).

Edited by - Joe Maccarrone on March 18 2006 4:47:41 PM
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  4:55:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm aware of the magazine spring fix, ref the new springs with the extra coils, we do have the new mags. One of my friends on the highway patrol was one of the folks who 'caused' the spring upgrade, when his G21 choked during a gun fight with a cop killer (bad guy shot by back officer with 12 gauge slug).

Our 165gr is booked at running 1150fps, which is one reason we wanted it, it's fairly hot ammo.

I plan on changing recoil springs often. The folks next door bought Glock 22s about three years ago, one of my buds who shoots alot broke his trigger pin while shooting, he figured out it was due to the recoil spring being worn out and the slide slamming into the frame too hard at the end of it's travel.
Go to Top of Page

Evan
Administrator

34704 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  5:20:03 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Denny Tueller's an old friend and we'll have him here at the store one of these days

Additionally, GD 180 is a good load and should meet yopur needs.

"The greatest thing a Father can do for his children is to love their Mother."

Harold B. Lee

Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  6:51:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I had the pleasure of lunch a couple of days in a row with Dennis and Rich Grassi, Dennis mentioned you being friends. Good guy to talk to. Don't get to see Rich that often since he left from working next door. We did get to take turns with the Glock 18 for fun

I'm more than ok with the Gold Dot, in gelatine I can't tell the 155/165/180 from each other, I'm happy a first class load is the seeming to be the one to use for reliability.

Edited by - Chuck on March 18 2006 6:52:18 PM
Go to Top of Page

Spectre
Average Member

326 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  8:14:10 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All the .40 caliber guns were designed around the 180. It was the only size bullet around when the caliber was created. We carry G23's with 155 Win sthp's and have had no ammo related problems in 10 years. There was some blazer that we had for practice at one point that was real good for practicing tap, rack, ready drills.....

We replace guns slowly 5 or 10 at a time. Last year the one batch we got had very thin "slide lock springs" (forgive me the armorers manual isnt near me.) Its the L shaped piece that sits in the slide and pushes up on the slide lock unit. Mine broke at the 4th magazine mark.. The replacements from Glock were the older thick ones. We had 10 guns with those come through. Just something to look out for.

"Character is easier kept than recovered" -Thomas Paine
Go to Top of Page

Evan
Administrator

34704 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  8:17:58 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
my old dept, Detroit PD went to the Glock 22&23 and had problems with firing out of battery with Win fmj-they do not approve jhps and currently issue Federal's expanding full metal jacketed ammo-such backward "thinking" does not instill confidence in the troops but the efmj has been ok and deforms faily regularly in BG's.

"The greatest thing a Father can do for his children is to love their Mother."

Harold B. Lee

Go to Top of Page

GLV
Moderator

USA
8866 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  9:02:01 PM  Show Profile  Send GLV an ICQ Message  Send GLV a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Did we have a thread concerning weapon mounted lights on G22s?? maybe about 18 months ago??

'the world is round everywhere'

'The meek will inherit the earth, but only after the last soldier has left it to them in his will'
Go to Top of Page

Derori
Senior Member

USA
550 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  9:25:39 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I wasn't around back then, and I'm no physicist, but I'm wondering if the extra mass connected to the frame would keep the frame from accelerating rearward as quickly. If the slide and frame did not move backward together for as long a period of time, then the slide would unlock a little sooner than normal.

That's the only way I can see where it would actually make a difference, though I certainly haven't done any high-speed photography or anything. That's just the only thing I can think of.
Go to Top of Page

Derori
Senior Member

USA
550 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  9:33:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just another thought: If that were, in fact, the case, then limp wristing the gun would possibly allow the frame and slide to move rearward together for a little longer period of time--keeping it from unlocking early. Of course, I don't see how the slide unlocking early would cause the specific malfunction that was mentioned.
Go to Top of Page

isp2605
Average Member

332 Posts

Posted - March 18 2006 :  10:33:41 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We got all our Glock 22s replaced by Glock for the very reason you are mentioning. We went to 22s in 1999-2000 with duty ammo of W-W 180 gr Ranger (RA40T). Over a year ago our SWAT guys were having FTF/FTE with high mileage 22s with lights mounted. However, even high mileage 22s without lights would have the same problems. Numerous calls to Glock. They said to change springs, worked for some, but not for all. Said it was the lights, except when it came to the 22s without lights. They said it was limp wristing, until their guy came up and had the same problems. They said it was poor maintenance until they saw every gun is torn down by the ROs every year for inspection and thorough cleaning. Finally one of the Glocks guys from across the pond came over. He told us this is a problem with 22s after 20K-30K. So it wasn't the springs after all. What was happening as the 22s got more rds the frames would begin to flex more. As a fix Glock lengthened the locking blocks in the 22s which is suppose to remove the excess flex. Late last summer/early fall Glock swapped out all our Glock 22s. Cost to us was $53/gun for new night sights. There's an article from last summer about it in the Bloomington-Normal, IL paper if anyone would care to search it.
There was a PD in Oregon that had the same problem and another I believe in KY but I can't recall exactly where that one was. After much back and forth with Glock, Glock agreed to replace their 22s. Glock won't do anything about it unless there's enough stomping of feet. There's nothing wrong with the 22 so it's not a Glock recall, it's an upgrade requiring replacement of the gun.
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  08:08:59 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The M3X light mounts very tightly to the frame, I'm told that these frames need to flex a certain way to work properly and that the light being on the dust cover rail with the 165gr Gold Dot ammo combination throws things off.

I'm going to shoot my G17 with the same light and see what happens, I've never had these issues with my 9mms,,,, but then my G35 has been 100% for several years with an M3 light and 165gr Golden Sabers.

I find it interesting that the .40s seem to have so many problems. My G17s have never had a stoppage that wasn't induced for training purposes. Got to put 2000 rounds of 124gr Blazer through a G18 last Thursday, in about half an hour, no stoppages. The same gun had fired 8000 rounds the day before in a demo, and 10,000 rounds the day before that.

Edited by - Chuck on March 19 2006 08:11:35 AM
Go to Top of Page

Evan
Administrator

34704 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  08:24:25 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm of the opinion that Glock 9MM's are excellent guns and all the rest of their product line less so. part of the problem is a corporate attitude to ignore issues until they've started to smell really bad and then they rush to the "rescue".

We're seeing a serious design flaw in the Glock 36-my employee has one that is not feeding with a darn. If we wedge a piece of cardboard between the rear of the mag and the frame it is flawless again-can we say design flaw-I've got a bunch of Glocks and rental guns and they've all been fine EXCEPT the 36. Today the 36 becomes s safe queen until I can replace with a Model 30.

I will never stock another Model 36 until they decide the redesign the frame and I like Glocks just fine BUT my 1st responsibility is to my customers.

"The greatest thing a Father can do for his children is to love their Mother."

Harold B. Lee

Go to Top of Page

isp2605
Average Member

332 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  08:56:44 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck

I'm going to shoot my G17 with the same light and see what happens, I've never had these issues with my 9mms

Never heard of a G17 with any problems. According the Glock from Across the Pond, and from what we've been able to find out from other agencies, only the G22 has had that kind of problem. It started showing up with the light mounted 22s. However, our SWAT guys (full time teams) carry the mounted lights and they run a lot of rds, so naturally theirs would be first to indicate a problem. It was when we started having the same problems with other high mileage 22s which had never had a light mounted on them that Glock quit the mantra that it was because of the lights.
Our G23s never have had the same problem. However, people who are issued 23s aren't generally those putting a lot of rds thru them so the 23s aren't likely to get the 20K-30K in 5 yrs.


quote:
Originally posted by Evan

If we wedge a piece of cardboard between the rear of the mag and the frame it is flawless again-can we say design flaw-

Oh no, can't be a design flaw. "Glock Perfection" don't ya know.
Glock won't recall them. If enough people complain about the 36 then Glock will send them a piece of cardboard and call it an upgrade. Sounds like a good after-market parts business venture for you. Quick, get a patent, paint the cardboard black, call it "Tactical Magazine Enhancer" (make sure you have Tactical in the name) and everyone will want one. Once the word is out people will want them for other Glock models. You'll be rich.
Go to Top of Page

n/a
deleted

1270 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  08:59:49 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This all reminds me that the HK USP was first designed for the 40 then later the 9mm. But even then by the time it was introduced some of the ammo makers came out with 135 gr loads .There was a problem and the gun was modified to feed that light bullet. BTW are any LEOs using the 135 ? Typical 9mm pistols converted to 40 had to have about 3 oz added to the slide including my P7 M10 to work properly.I guess it's the old story of sticking to the original design criteria is the best way !!
Go to Top of Page

TONY
Advanced Member

USA
3418 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  09:06:16 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I got interested in the .40 Glocks when years ago the FBI adopted them. I figured they must have put them through some pretty tough testing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't those the pre-light rail guns??

Evan, and many others for that matter, have always been against "do-dads" hung off of guns.
I wonder if the re-design to accomodate "do-dads" might have something to do with the problems???

I've owned two Glock 20, 10mm's and never had a problem but they were all the older frame, only one had the finger grooves but no light rail. I put at least a couple thousand round through each of them.

I had a Glock 23 with light rails but I didn't like it very much so I sold it before I got enough rounds through it to know if it had any problems.

I'm on 3rd Glock 29 with no problems, my 27 has also been trouble free but I only have about 500 rounds through it so it still remains to be seen.

Stay Safe,

TONY
Go to Top of Page

Derori
Senior Member

USA
550 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  09:32:38 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All this stuff I keep reading about the Glocks in forty is what makes me hope that they'll start chambering some of the Model 37 slides in that caliber. They realized with the .45 GAP that they needed more slide mass--since they probably didn't want to put a heavier spring in those ones, either!--so I'm hoping they'll decide to offer a forty with that slide someday. Even though it uses lighter bullets, some of the ammo for the forty produces a lot more energy than the GAP loads that are currently available.
Go to Top of Page

n/a
deleted

3224 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  09:59:50 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The ONLY Glocks that seem to be trouble free are 9mm's. I think the 45 GAP models will be too because they were designed by Glock.

My G36 was the worst handgun I ever owned. I went through three of them and never did get one that was reliable. Glock kept replacing them and they still FTF"d

I have high mileage mod 26's ,and mod 19's that heve never burped.Both are well into the thousands. My mod 39 is the same.
If it was me Chuck I'd buy a used 22 for practice and keep my duty weapon as low round as possible. Even if you do find a good ammo combo and 180's do function more reliably I'd run up the round count on one I didn't depend on.
My .02
Jim
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  10:51:48 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have two 22s now, one issue. My plan was to run my really high round count through my G17s as quite frankly just the 400 rounds of .40 in one night has left my hands tingling and hurting.
I'm the kind of guy who will detail check my duty gun often to be sure there is no peening of the firing pin/firing pin safety/etc. and the kind of guy to be willing to buy my own G22 to trash so that the company gun stays up and running for me. This would make me not the average copper. I am seriously worried about my troops, not myself, in this issue.

This reminds me of the days we were breaking down model 66s all of the time due to the use of the 125gr Remington. Maybe Glock needs to come up with an analogy to the 686????

ISP, what ammo are ya'll shooting up your way, still the Ranger?????....... and another question comes to mind, are ya'll better off with the .40 or did the 9mm work about the same on the street?... I'm guessing what the answer is....

Edited by - Chuck on March 20 2006 10:31:24 AM
Go to Top of Page

ought6
Senior Member

USA
713 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  12:14:07 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Chuck, I didn't know y'all said, "y'all", in Kansas .

This thread has reinforced some issues I've also heard about the Glock 40's. I'm sorry, but if I wanted to use a certain round (165gr Gold Dot) in my pistol, the pistol should function!!!

I agree with the reliability of the Glock 9mm's. Our department is currently changing over from Smith's to Glock 17's.

You asked about rounds? We currently are using the Ranger 147 gr subsonic. We are now looking at possibly going with a 124 gr +p. During a recent shooting, the BG took one through the left side that hit his spine and turned down into his chest area. He died soon thereafter at the hospital. The 147 gr subsonic penetrated well, but hardly expanded. I believe this to be the case in several shootings we've had with this round.

I'll be glad when we go to a more potent (faster) round. I'm a firm believer that 9mm's need speed to reliably expand.

Psalms 18:34-35 He trains my hands for battle, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. (35) You have also given me the shield of Your salvation, And Your right hand upholds me; And Your gentleness makes me great.

ought6
Go to Top of Page

isp2605
Average Member

332 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  2:10:16 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck

ISP, what ammo are ya'll shooting up your way, still the Ranger?????....... and another question comes to mind, are ya'll better off with the .40 or did the 9mm work about the same on the street?... I'm guessing what the answer is....



Was still issuing 180 gr Ranger last fall. However, I heard that 1st shoot this spring will be issued Federal of some sort. I retired 03/01 so I'm out of touch with the day to day goings-on. Don't know which Federal the ISP will use.
I was only briefed on 3 of our shootings with the .40 and Ranger so don't know how it worked since 1999. 2 of those were superficial wounds thru meat parts of the body. Both took the fight of the BGs. The 3rd shoot was when a subject attempted to disarm a Troop when a 2nd Troop put a rd in the BG. It took the fight out of him for a bit but by the time the ambulance crew got there he tried fighting with them. Died enroute to the hospital. Don't know much about where that rd traveled other than it went in near the collar bone at a downward angle to somewhere in the chest cavity.
As far as better off with .40 than 9 - hard for me to say since I haven't seen the shooting results or as many of the .40 as closely as I did with the 9. However, it wasn't like we were having problems with the 9 tho. It does appear range scores, on average, improved when going to the Glock 22s but even that is hard to judge accurately. When we had the 9s the qual course was 50 rds 4 times/yr. After going to the Glock .40 the qual course changed into more emphasis on training and less on qual scores. Ammo expended with the .40 ended up being at minimum 100 rds/session (4 times a year) instead of the 50 rds/session with the 9. What it did appear tho was those who were decent shots before and had more trigger time on the 9 didn't show improvement but those who were poor shots before showed an improvement. I don't know if that was the result of more rds fired per session, consistent trigger of the Glock compared to the DA/SA of the S&W, or a combo of both.
I never had heartburn with the 9. In fact, now that I'm an old retired guy I've gone to carrying my 6904 as my retired carry gun.
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  2:25:07 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks guys.

'06-look up the tread in stopping power ref 9mm, we've had very good performance from the 124+p Gold Dot, ditto for NYPD. A buddy on ESU advises that the troops don't clamor for bigger calibers anymore since they have ammo that works now.
Go to Top of Page

J.P.
New Member

89 Posts

Posted - March 19 2006 :  11:09:25 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I had a G36 that was very unreliable with a wide variety of ammo.
It had FTEject,FTExtract,FTFeed.
I gave it back to the dealer for another model.
I really liked the gun but I wouldn't trust another one.

I've never had a problem with any other Glocks except the g19 with 10rd mags.
Go to Top of Page

pimuk
New Member

Thailand
99 Posts

Posted - March 20 2006 :  08:01:51 AM  Show Profile  Send pimuk an AOL message  Reply with Quote
My G-23 works best with the 180-grainer that goes from low 900 to low 1,000 fps.

To me, the full power 155- and 165-grainers produce too fast a slide velocity, though, they never have produced stoppages in my hand yet.





Go to Top of Page

Rule10b5
Starting Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - March 20 2006 :  12:56:29 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I guess I'm just lucky or something.

My wife's G35 gobbles up whatever she feeds it -- light, fast, heavy, slow, it doesn't matter. No failures ever.

My G36 hasn't had any problems -- though I'm running +10% magazine springs, heavy recoil spring, two piece steel rod, NY1 trigger spring and 3.5# connector, and the guts are completely polished (I shoot a lot of hot .45, what can I say?). I did notice that the stock recoil setup didn't seem stiff enough to smoothly run the loads I wanted, which is what predicated the above changes. Stock setup was fine with factory .45 loads, though.

I've heard a lot of complaints about them, but never experienced any problems...
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
StoppingPower.net Forums © 2002-16 StoppingPower.net, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Thispagewasgeneratedin1.27seconds. Snitz Forums 2000